Hot Rods 57 FORD Build #2... Glutton for Punishment.

I was surprised to read about the expansion tank problems. My 62 had a 110000 miles on it and the original tank when I sold it. I was around many of those in the 60's and never was told of a failure. Is this something that took years of fatigue to cause?

 

Most of the failures I saw were cracking where the tank was soldered to the support bracket, with an occasional failure of the solder joint between the tank and the bracket which would cause cracking elsewhere. It wasn't an epidemic but was enough to become known. This was in the late '60s/'70s. They weren't easy to find in the wrecking yards either as these cars at that point were usually there because of accident damage and the tanks didn't survive front-end hits well. The tanks also weren't inexpensive, so the radiator outfits started building 'conventional' radiators for those applications eliminating the need for the tanks... saving the insurance companies money.

The idea originated with the '58-60 T-bird which had a particularly low hood line putting the radiator too low for a conventional fill. For some reason Ford moved it into their full-size car line in '60 but abandoned the idea after '65.

 

if your top tank were split at the upper hose connection, is that fixable?

 

Hahahaha!!! Mine too!!!

 

its by my estimate 3 inches just along the seam where the tank is brazed together right next to the upper hose

 

Jeff, what is the reasoning behind using a 352. More cubes equals more power. One of the best features of an fe is nobody knows whats inside. Because you are using steel heads and a stock intake, you are kind of limited with choices. If you were doing a restoration, I could understand it but in the hot rod world, "bored and stroked" were by-words for a long time. Still are if you look at the sales of Scat crank kits.

 

The 352 was a pretty popular budget swap in the early/mid '60s. 60 more cubic inches and only a 25 lb weight penalty over a 292 Y-block, and that's if you kept the iron intake. And they responded to hopping up pretty well. They were also pretty much a bolt-in into a '57, not much more work into a '55-56. The 390s were out there, but were more money and the 406/427 were really big bux because of rarity.

Very much 'era correct'....

 

One of the things from my youth that there are no pics of, a friend had an older brother and a father who were pretty talented for this area. They took a 55 Ford and turned it into a short 2 door coupe. One of those things that never looked quite right. I can't remember if it got a 332 or 352. It had a 3 speed manual and could pull the front wheels sometimes on a 2nd gear shift. With age you realize the work that goes into cutting a car in half and you're more impressed than you were at 16. I agree with Steve's statement as I saw many of those engine swaps. I am also from the school of torque.

 

Even though I’m a diehard Mopar guy, this car hits home with me, I love cars that most people don’t/wouldn’t build. The ‘57 Ford isn’t exactly a super popular car to build and using an engine that isn’t popular just makes it better!!

(Keep in mind I have hours into machine work on a slant six, I may not be the best judge of such things)

 

'Youngsters' have to realize that the 352s of '58-60 vintage weren't the same as the later versions. These were Ford's top-of-the-line power options at the time (except for the 430 option in the T-bird) and had four-barrel carbs and compression ratios of up to 10.5-1. Put a solid-lifter cam in one and it woke right up. The rare 360HP/352 proved that. But when the 390 arrived in '61, the 352 got relegated to grocery-getter status; the four-barrel disappeared along with a couple of points compression so it would run on regular and the 352 started acquiring its boat anchor reputation. Subsequent years were no kinder. It disappeared in cars for good in '67, then lived on in trucks as the 360 until '75.

 

Sacrilege bite your tongue and look through these and see how many are 57's . Not popular indeed.

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/images-of-tri-five-fords.1210072/page-64#post-14375277

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/the-kustom-ranchero-thread.1067341/page-22

 

Further on the 352/390 talk; there's a reason guys will use a 327 instead of a 350, or 340 instead of a 360. It's the mystique of the engine, or just that's THE engine we grew up with.

 

Jeff, if that 352 runs like one can, the irony will be that no one will believe you when you tell them it's a 352... LOLOL...

 

What's the bore and stroke of a 352?

 

In comparison to say a ‘57 Chevy? Probably not the first car that comes to mind for MOST people looking for a project!

 

4.00 x 3.5.... They do rev better than their bigger brothers.

 

I totally get the 352 thing. My 59 hardtop totally bone stock 4 bbl 352 has had more than one friend say it can't be stock. It has that Torque thing going on. Most of them are SBC guys, I just chuckle.

 

Same as a 351 Windsor or Cleveland. I thought they maybe would be something more oddball.
Shouldn't be problem getting 300-325 hp out of one with a hotter cam and a few bolt-on's.

 

I watched the 2 videos that Jeff linked to. For those of you that are unaware of the magic of the thin metric ring pack, that engine was modernized pretty good. You note that he never gave out the cam specs. 432 hp was more than I was expecting. He said at one point that it had 410 lbs. ft of torque. That was lower than I expected. But as a comparison, I ran a gas dragster in 1976 that had a 4 star rebuilt 390 shortblock that was in poor condition from the previous owner running around with no air cleaner. It had everyday heads off a 390 with double valve springs added. I used a factory 3 deuce carb setup with no jetting changes at all, an Accell dual point dist. with a stock coil and some short tube headers that would have been the equivalent of running stock manifolds. No raised compression and a solid lifter cam that was in the low 230 degree range at .050. According to an online calculator that uses weight versus et or mph. , I had 300 hp. I think that was very close. So if a wore out engine could make 300, should a good unit make 400? Always room for conjecture. I got curious looking for cam info. From what I read, the hipo 352 cam was the same as the single 4 427 cam in 1963. Jeff, what are you using in your engine?

 

That's what makes me think it is factory.

 

Mr. Norwell, I have enjoyed your thread a lot. You are famous so people come out of the wood work to help. No matter what the reason, that's still in the spirit of good human nature and I like that, a lot. I'm old and have no short term memory so I went back and read the thread again. From reading about the 352, it became apparent that you may not know what cam is in the engine. My 1st car was a 57 fairlane 500 that had a froze 312 in it. It also was a 4 door so the love affair was very limited. Yellow and white with a black interior. My half brother had the victoria 2 door hardtop also in yellow and white. That car was long and low. The 300's were not like that. Having a 300 that is a getter is where they should be. Because of what I have seen in your past, there is no question in my mind that this car will be cool when finished. The 352 maybe temporary but with the engine arsenal you have, all of the other options will be stronger. This is moving at a good pace which is how I believe builds should be. You have put up a few pics of dash layouts. I don't remember seeing any with the padded dash. Is that not in the Plan? I apologize for this being long. You mentioned the "den of iniquity" several times. You did a drawing years ago of a model a in green and black. That has been my desktop for years. Thank you for that.